ILNews

Opinions - June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s Opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Larz A. Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital, et al.
70A01-0911-CV-553
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Larz Elliott’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Rush Memorial Hospital, Carrie Tressler, and Dr. Philip Kingma. Elliott had alleged battery and negligence with respect to the forced catheterization to retrieve a urine sample after a Rush County sheriff’s deputy transported him to Rush Memorial Hospital and represented a court order at the hospital to retrieve a blood sample and a urine sample. Finds trial court erred in concluding that the defendants enjoy complete statutory immunity from any civil liability related to his claims of battery and negligence, but also finds Elliot’s claims fall outside the parameters of the Medical Malpractice Act because he was not a “patient” of the defendants, and that his catheterization clearly was not for his own medical benefit.

Sam's East Inc. City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals v. United Energy Corporation Inc. d/b/a Greenwood Sunoco
41A04-0909-CV-545
Civil. Affirms trial court’s reversal of the decision of the City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals to issue a variance to Sam’s East Inc. to have a gas station near a Sam’s Club location in Greenwood. Since receiving approval for the gas station in 2005, Sam’s Club had encountered an environmental issue that delayed building plans, and the permit had expired before Sam’s constructed the gas station. After the permit expired, Sunoco built a gas station on property adjacent to Sam’s property. Shortly after, an ordinance was adopted that changed whether gas stations could be built in the area where Sam’s had previously received permission.

Cedar Mill Homeowners Association Inc. v. Patrick J. Bocian (NFP)
32A05-1001-SC-85
Civil. Affirms small claims court’s denial of Cedar Mill’s request for attorney’s fees.

Gregor W. King and Delores P. King v. Hamilton Southeastern Utilities Inc. (NFP)
29A05-0909-CV-527
Civil. Affirms amount of damages entered after a jury trial for the valuation of the Kings’ land affected by the acquisition of a temporary and permanent easement by eminent domain.

K.T. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1266
Civil. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Review Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to dismiss K.T.’s appeal as untimely.

J.S. v. J.M. and M.M. (NFP)
75A03-0911-CV-535
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting visitation with J.S. (mother)’s minor daughter C.G.M. to her paternal grandparents J.M. and M.M..

A.E. a/k/a A.S v. B.S. (NFP)
80A02-0909-CV-905
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order emancipating A.E. (mother) and B.S. (father)’s 19-year-old son K.S. Also reverses and remands determination of arrearages on child support; and apportionment of partial arrearage to K.S.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT